Though the technology achievements have been quite impressive in the elapsed
century, the achievements of science should be recognized to be much more
modest (contrary to "circumscientific" advertising). All these achievements can
be attributed, most likely, to efforts of the experimenters, engineers and
inventors, rather than to "breakthroughs" in the theoretical physics. The "value"
of "post factum arguments" is well-known. Besides, it is desirable to evaluate
substantially the "losses" from similar "breakthroughs" of the theorists.
The major "loss" of the past century is the loss of unity and interdependence
in physics as a whole, i.e. the unity in the scientific ideology and in the
approach to various areas of physics. The modern physics obviously represents
by itself a "raglish blanket", which is tried to be used for covering
boundless "heaps" in separate investigations and unbound facts. Contrary to
the artificially maintained judgement, that the modern physics rests upon
some well-verified fundamental theories, too frequently the ad hoc hypotheses
appear (for a certain particular phenomenon), as well as science-like
adjustments of calculations to the "required result", similarly to students'
peeping at an a priori known answer to the task. The predictive force of
fundamental theories in applications occurs to be close to zero (contrary to
allegations of "showman from science"). This relates, first of all, to the special relativity
theory (SRT): all practically verifiable "its" results were obtained either prior
to developing this theory or without using its ideas, and only afterwards,
by the efforts of "SRT accumulators", these results have been "attributed"
to achievements of this theory.

It may seem that the relativity theory (RT) has been firmly integrated into the
modern physics, so that there is no need to "dig" in its basement, but it would
be better to finish building "the upper stages of a structure". One can only
"stuff the bumps" when criticizing RT (recall the resolution of the Presidium
of the USSR Academy of Sciences, that equated the RT criticism to the invention
of the Perpetuum Mobile). The solid scientific journals are ready to consider
both the hypotheses, which can not be verified in the nearest billion of years,
and those hypotheses, which can never be verified. However, anything but every
scientific journal undertakes to consider the principal issues of RT. It would
seem the situation has to be just opposite. Because RT is being teached not
only in high schools, but also in a primary school, at arising even slightest
doubts all issues should be seriously and thoroughly discussed by the
scientific community (in order "not to spoil young hearts").

However, there exists (not numerous but very active and of high rank) part
of scientific elite that behaves a strangely encoded manner. These scientists
can seriously and condescendingly discuss "yellow elephants with pink tails"
(superheavy particles inside the Moon that remained obligatory after Big Bang,
or analogous fantasies), but an attempt to discuss the relativity theory
leads to such active centralized acts, as if their underclothes would be
taken off and some "birth-mark" would be discovered. Possibly, they
received the "urgent order to inveigh" without reading. But any criticism,
even most odious, can have some core of sense, which is able to improve
their own theory.

RT claims to be not simply a theory (for example, as one of computational
methods as applied to the theory of electromagnetism), but the first principle,
even the "super-supreme" principle capable of canceling any other verified
principles and concepts: of space, time, conservation laws, etc. Therefore,
RT should be ready for more careful logical and experimental verifications.
As it will be shown in this book, RT does not withstand logical verification.

Figuratively speaking, SRT is an example of what is called an "impossible
construction" (like the "impossible cube" from the book cover, etc.),
where each element is
non-contradictive locally, but the complete construction is a contradiction.
SRT does not contain local mathematical errors, but as soon as we say that
letter means the real time, then we immediately extend the construction,
and contradictions will be revealed. A similar situation takes place with
spatial characteristics, etc.

We have been learned for a long time to think, that we are able to live with
paradoxes, though the primary "paradoxes" have been reduced by relativists
rather truthfully to some conventional "strangenesses". In fact, however,
every sane man understands that, if a real logical contradiction is present in the
theory, then it is necessary to choose between the logic, on which all science
is founded, and this particular theory. The choice can obviously not be made
in favor of this particular theory. Just for this reason the given book begins
with logical contradictions of RT, and the basic attention is given to logical
problems here.

Any physical theory describing a real phenomenon can be experimentally verified
according to the "yes - no" principle. RT is also supported by the approach:
"what is experimentally unverifiable - it does not exist". Since RT must
transfer to the classical physics at low velocities (for example, for the
kinematics), and the classical result is unique (it does not depend on the
observation system), the relativists often try to prove the absence of RT
contradictions by reducing the paradoxes to a unique result, which coincides
with classical one. Thereby, this is a recognition of the experimental
indetectability of kinematic RT effects and, hence, of their actual absence
(that is, of the primary Lorentz's viewpoint on the auxiliary character of
the relativistic quantities introduced). Various theorists try to "explain"
many disputable RT points in a completely different manner: everybody is
allowed to think-over the nonexistent details of the "dress of a bare king"
by himself. This fact is an indirect sign of the theory ambiguity as well.
The relativists try to magnify the significance of their theory by co-ordinating
with it as many theories as possible, including those in absolutely
non-relativistic areas. The artificial
character of such a globalistic "web" of interdependencies is obvious.

The relativity theory (as a field of activity) is defended, except the
relativists, also by mathematicians, who forget that physics possesses its own
laws. First, the confirmability of some final conclusions does not prove truth
of the theory (as well as the validity of the Fermat theorem in no way implies
the correctness of all "proofs" presented for 350 years; or, the existence of
crystal spheres does not follow from the visible planet and stars motion).
Second, even in
mathematics there exist the conditions, which can hardly be expressed in
formulas and, thus, complicate searching for solutions (as, for example, the
condition: to find the solutions in natural numbers). In physics this fact is
expressed by the notion termed "the physical sense of quantities". Third,
whereas mathematics can study any objects (both really existing and unreal
ones), physics deals only with searching for interrelations between really
measurable physical quantities. Certainly, a real physical quantity can either
be decomposed into the combination of some functions or substituted into some
complex function, and then we can "invent" the sense of these combinations.
But this is nothing more than the scholar mathematical exercises on
substitutions, which have nothing in common with physics irrespective of
their degree of complication.

We shall leave for conscience of "showman from science" their intention
to deceive or to be deceived (to their personal interests) and shall try to
impartially analyze some doubtful aspects of RT.

Note that during the RT life time the papers have repeatedly appeared, which
contained some paradoxes and criticism of relativistic experiments; the
attempts were undertaken to correct RT and to revive the theory of ether.
However, the criticism of RT had only partial character, as a rule, and
affected only separate aspects of this theory. The current of the criticism
and its quality was considerably increased in the end of the last century only
(the article and book titles from the bibliography speak for themselves).

It should be recognized that, as against the criticism, there exists the
professional fundamental apologetics of RT [3,17,19,26,30,31,33-35,37-41].
Therefore, the main purpose of the author was to present a
successive, systematic criticism of RT just resting upon a fine apologetics of
this theory. Following to the "conventional private tradition", the basic
part of the given book was tested in international scientific journals
(GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS, SPACETIME & SUBSTANCE).
As a result this task has been fulfilled step-by-step beginning with the works
[48-55], in which the author considered in detail the RT underlying experiments,
the baseline kinematic concepts of the special relativity theory and
of the general relativity theory, the notions of relativistic dynamics and
some consequences of relativistic dynamics. The critical
works contain, virtually, no papers on the relativistic dynamics. This fact was
one of the main incentives for writing this book.

The present book represents by itself some generalization of published papers
from the single standpoint. (Besides, the logical subtleties can always be
better grasped in own native language.) To see the most complete "picture of
nonsense" we shall, whenever possible, try to discuss each doubtful
point of relativity theory irrespective of remaining ones. However, due to
the limited scope, the book does not contain the citing from textbooks.
Therefore, it is presupposed some reader's knowledge of relativity theory.
Besides, often the book considers both the conventional interpretations of
relativity theory and possible "relativistic alternatives". This is made
to prevent the temptation of rescue of relativity theory with other relativistic
choices in disputable points. "Monster" is dead for a long time, and it is
not worth to revive it - this is the author's opinion.

It is rather difficult to choose the successive logic of presentation:
for any problem there arises the desire for presentation of all attendant
nuances in the same place of the book, but it is impossible. The author
believe that if a reader can read to the end, majority of impromptu questions
and doubts will be consecutively elucidated. The structure of the book is
the following. Chapter 1 critically analyzes relativistic notions,
like time, space, and many other aspects of relativistic kinematics.
Chapter 2 presents the criticism of the basis for general relativity theory
(GRT) and for relativistic cosmology.
The experimental substantiation of RT will be criticized in Chapter 3.
In so doing we shall not consider in detail the experiments pertinent only to
electromagnetism or various particular hypotheses of ether (this theme is
huge in itself). Instead, we shall analyze exclusively some general experiments
affecting the essence of RT kinematics and dynamics. Chapter 4 contains the
criticism of notions of special relativity theory (SRT), results and
interpretations of relativistic dynamics. Conclusions are made for each
chapter. Some particular hypotheses are considered in Appendixes.